(HC) Jackline v. Sacramento County Main Jail ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUDLEY W. JACKLINE, No. 2:19-cv-1046 KJM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On December 20, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, 20 petitioner has not objected to the findings and recommendations. 21 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the findings and 22 recommendations was returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s 23 responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 24 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court has 4 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal this 5 decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 6 Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 7 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 8 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of 9 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 10 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 11 procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 12 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 13 ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 14 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’ ” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 15 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons 16 set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the court finds that issuance of 17 a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 20, 2019, are adopted in full; 20 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 21 and 22 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2253. 24 DATED: February 5, 2020. 25 26 27 28